RSS feeds

When people are unenthusiastic about social media and other Web 2.0 stuff it is tempting to be a bit sneery and say they don't "get it". Who can fail to see the benefits of publishing without publishers, and organising without organisations? The tools may take a little getting used to, but surely they are worth trying in pursuit of a better world?
Maybe for you, but not necessarily for them. It could be people do get it and don't like what they see, because your world view isn't theirs.
If they say We can't do that - and they mustn't do it either, it may be a reflection of organisational culture - or something deeper about the way thing work.
I remember a few years back reading an excellent piece by Jack Martin Leith about worldviews, and writing, in the context of participation and e-democracy:

He suggests it is important to understand whether we - and others - are seeing our world (organisation, neighbourhood, group) as a mechanism, a set of changing relationships, a system, or something even more organic and inherently messy. As he shows, that influences the sort of techniques professionals may use when they intervene.

So when knowledge management guru David Gurteen sent out a World 2.0 newsletter the other day I had Jack in mind.
David wrote:

Most of us understand what Web 2.0 is all about as we move from a read-only web to a read-write or participatory web.
And we are starting to come to grips with so called Enterprise 2.0 where the concept and technologies and social tools of Web 2.0 are moving from the open web into organizations.
It is still early days and there are many issues to be grappled with as we try to balance the structure and stability of the old world with the more fluid and complex nature of the new.
But the "2.0 meme" is starting to affect everything. In a talk in Kuala Lumpur I was asked how you implement Enterprise 2.0 and I was talking about some of the barriers when someone spoke up and said "We will never have Enterprise 2.0 until we have Managers 2.0!” In other words it was managers and their out-dated mind sets that was a major barrier to change,
And a few days later while giving another talk at the National Library in Singapore I found us talking about Libraries 2.0 and Learning 2.0. It then hit me that “2.0” thinking was permeating everything. People were also taking about Business 2.0 and Education 2.0.
So what does this mean in its broadest sense? Well, we are no longer consumers: of goods, services or education - we are all prosumers - we all have the opportunity to create and consume. For the first time we are participants in everything and not the “victims”. Fundamentally it is about "freedom".
We are moving from a world where we were told to do things and where things were structured or planned for us to one where we get to decide what works best for us. We are moving from a mono-culture to a highly diverse ecology.
We are moving from a simple world to a rich, complex, diverse one. One where power is less centralized and more distributed. We are moving from a command and control world to a world where people can do as they please within the boundaries of responsibility.

David offers a neat little World 1.0/World 2.0 chart.
And while I'm thinking about this I see that Jack has spotted it as well, and blogged his own piece, paying tribute in the process to David's excellent knowledge cafes and generous knowledge sharing. Very definitely a World 2.0 person.
Perhaps nudged by David's piece Jack has updated his own mid-1990s Worldviews, 1, 2, and 3 article which is now here. As a taster, here's Worldview 2.0:

Worldview 2 is the emerging worldview. In this scheme of things the world is seen as an ecosystem. These are some of the main features of W2:

* Effective when the environment is complex, turbulent, unpredictable
* Organisational life is governed by democracy and self-management
* Plan-do-review
* Adult-adult relationships (interdependence)
* “Create what you want” mindset
* Innovation through creating value for the whole system
* Beyond the metaphor of “the future is a place, change is
a journey”

The W2 worldview is based largely on complexity science and the various branches of systems theory, including the cybernetics of Gregory Bateson.

This is in contrast to Worldview 1:

Worldview 1, in which the world is seen as a huge machine, has been the dominant worldview for the last 300 years. These are some of the main features of W1:

The W1 worldview is based largely on reductionism (attempting to understand reality by studying its constituent parts), a mechanistic view of the world and a limited, linear model of cause and effect.

Jack is a terrific Open Space expert, committed to helping people come together face-to-face and ...

.... discuss issues of heartfelt concern, share ideas, pool knowledge, reach agreement on the best way forward, and develop plans for collaborative action.

He - and others using similar methods - demonstrate that you don't need Web 2.0 to develop World 2.0 - though it does extend what you can do out of the room, and a bit more. What you do need for World 2.0 is people who are prepared to be open, collaborative - and recognise that life is messy. If you wish to explore:

As I remarked the other day, there's a number of new platforms wishing to claim they are the Facebook of the nonprofit sector, or generally suggesting they are the best place to be online. They often go for the old-style model of creating a "walled garden" behind a login, staking out territory in ways that reflect the competitive and territorial style of those anxious about retaining their membership and so their funding.
It was refreshing to meet up last night with the team behind the new UnLtdWorld site, which is taking a different direction. Yes, you do register, login, fill out your profile and start communicating with others within the system. However, as this slide full of logos show, the aim is to create a "collaborative ecosystem" whereby it is possible to join up with other systems in order to get content in and out.
I was at the launch event for the site, and sound levels didn't really allow for detailed technical explanations, though you can find some here. I was able to talk to both Alberto Nardelli, the Social Network Manager who directed development with the team from Curverider, and with the Chief Executive of Unltd, Cliff Prior. As Cliff says in his profile:

UnLtd is a charity which supports social entrepreneurs who live in the UK - people with vision, drive, commitment and passion who want to change the world for the better. We do this by providing a complete package of funding and support, to help these individuals make their ideas a reality.

I first invited Alberto out into Weston Street, underneath London Bridge Station, hoping for some quiet ... but found we were on a bus route. The lighting was pretty bad too. However, he and Paul Henderson of Ruralnetonline managed to carry on a conversation started inside The Bridge club.

I later found a quieter spot to talk to Cliff, where he provided a convincing account of how UnltdWorld may - with its open approach - be able to achieve something others could not on their own. One of the great strengths of system is that it is rooted in offline networks of social entrepreneurs developed by Unltd over the past few years. Click to playOn joining the system, I didn't at first quite understand how best to use it, because I was looking for somewhere to blog or otherwise makes substantial contributions. Cliff explained I really needed to fill out my profile more fully in order to connect with others of similar interests.
Then there's the "shouts" - postings limited to 300 characters. Short for a blog item ... but aha! think of it as a long tweet, the 140 character items you can post to Twitter. Social entreprenuers like to do more than they talk.

Just what to call yourself if you are organising to do good stuff for social benefit is quite confusing these days ... but at least we know what challenges and opportunities lie ahead thanks to a summary from NCVO Third Sector Foresight. Pestilence, famine and war are there in various guises, but so too are the potentially positive uses of technology, and different ways of organising. More on those later.
First to what doing good should be called. The other day Stuart Etherington, the chief executive of NCVO, the umbrella organisation for UK nonprofits, was musing about a change of name for what is currently known as the voluntary and community sector. These organisations may also be known as the third sector (as in not public or private). Some are charities (about the only term widely recognised by those not in the business), and the more entrepreneurial are social enterprises. It can be difficult to spot the difference between charities that have an entrepeneurial trading arm, and socially responsible businesses that may have an associated charity.
Charity Finance reported:

NCVO chief executive Stuart Etherington has ambitions to augment the power of the voluntary sector voice by harnessing the whole of civil society, not just charities and social enterprises.
In an interview with Charity News Alert, Etherington outlined his future agenda for the organisation and the sector – “I would hope they are parallel” – and signalled his desire to boost the sector’s influence over public policy by widening its net to include all of civil society and by establishing a 50-member civil society assembly.
Etherington refused to be drawn on whether he could foresee a day when the NCVO would rename itself the ‘National Council of Civil Society Organisations’, but confirmed the organisation was “keen to encourage a debate about how the sector defines itself”.
“I prefer the term civil society because it is more inclusive and defines us in relation to those we work with and for, rather than to government or business.”
He also admitted to seeing merit in recasting the Office of the Third Sector as the Office for Civil Society, an idea first proposed by the Conservatives as long ago as 2001.
An early indication of the new agenda has emerged in the name of the 2008 Almanac – the NCVO’s annual study of the state of the third sector. Instead of ‘Voluntary Sector Almanac’, this year’s edition is to be renamed the ‘Civil Society Almanac’, and will for the first time include data from organisations such as trade unions, universities, housing associations and political parties.
The NCVO also plans to establish a 50-member assembly that will debate civil society’s response to pressing public policy issues. The assembly will mostly comprise representatives from within the voluntary sector, nominated and then elected by NCVO members, but provision has been made for ten of the 50 to be co-opted.

I believe that the idea of an assembly is a response to NCVO-member pressure more involvement in policy and direction, and I'll be interested in how it turns out. It's a fairly old-style mechanism of representation which might lead to the usual problems of uncertain governance, where people aren't sure whether the assembly, forum, council or whatever it may be called is the focus, or the board of trustees. Maybe it will be OK if Stuart and NCVO staff see their organisation as a network which is permeable rather than closely-bounded, and encourage continual conversations between members, staff, assembly-members and others as well as having some formal meetings.
As I mentioned above, the challenges and opportunities facing whatever we may be called have been highlighted by the foresight unit at NCVO. Megan Griffith reports on a seminar at the NCVO annual conference where a panel of speakers debated the ‘burning issues’ of climate change, bridging communities and the ways in which young people are associating.The session began with a presentation from Lenka Setkova, who took everyone through the findings of the Carnegie UK Trust’s Inquiry into the future of civil society in the UK and Ireland. You can download the report here. It is a terrific piece of work, but unfortunately only available, a far as I can see, as pdfs, which rather stifles online conversation because it is difficult to link or quote.
All the more useful then that Stuart Etherington invited seminar participants to discuss the presentation, and then assemble their own set of messages as risks/challenges/threats, opportunities, questions, and calls to action. You can see the whole list here, but here's the interesting calls to action:

Civil society should define and exemplify new models and patterns of growth. Growth is not always good. Extra extra extra is neither equitable or sustainable – let’s look for ‘infragrowth’. The negawatt (energy saved) rather than megawatt (energy generated).

If we could make growing older a positive experience we would at the same time find universal solutions for social coherence.

I'm glad to see a potentially positive role for technology and the online world in there, and I'm look forward to exploring that further with Megan and colleagues, who I've worked with before. I'm also taking some comfort from Stuart's renaming process that this blog's title may have increasing relevance. It was all a bit of an accident, as you can see here.
Previously

Paul Miller, Dan McQuillan and Christian Albert have given us first news of their plans for Social Innovation Camp in London, when ideas people, geeks, mentors and sponsors will gather for a weekend of intensive co-creation on April 4-6:

Innovation happens when diverse groups of people get together - individuals who can bring something different to the mix and help each other to look at problems in a new light.
We’re interested in creating unexpected collaborations between people, organizations and networks. The Social Innovation Camp will be an opportunity for all participants to meet people who think about things differently to them.
The weekend will be designed with this principle in mind. Social Innovation Camp will bring some of the best of the UK’s web designers and developers together with those at the sharp end of social problems. Throw in some people with the business and organisational knowledge needed to make things happen and we’re hoping to come out with some innovative solutions to enable social change.

Ideas for your innovative project have to be in by March 7, and you are told by March 17 whether you are successful. These projects are then developed collaboratively over the weekend:

Pitch your prototype. We’re hoping that by the end of the weekend you’ll be part of a group with a basic working model for a new venture. The event will close with a pitching process which will include some prizes for the winning pitches.
Start your venture. Social Innovation Camp is all about creating the relationships needed to start new projects and we hope your ideas won’t end with the weekend. We’re currently thinking about the best way to help you pursue your venture – or if it’s more appropriate, find someone to take it on for you. More on how this will work coming soon.

I think we are now seeing several different approaches emerging on how nonprofit organisations may use social technology (building on old structures) ... or how we can collaborate to do good stuff using new stuff (which is likely to mean developing new structures).
These different - maybe complementary - approaches were evident last year at the Newman Arms get together which I reported here. Some people were interested in enhancing the capability of existing community and voluntary sector organisations, others felt a new direction was needed. Dan McQillan - of the social innovation camp team - made it clear he felt charities are broken and later trailed the innovation camp idea.
Meanwhile there's still a lot to do helping existing organisation deal with the basics of computer and internet use. I'll be hearing more about that when I run a workshop with Laura Whitehead, Nick Booth and others at the UK Circuits Riders conference at the end of this month. Circuit Riders provide tech support to small organisations.
Earlier this week I went to a new Forum for Circuit Riders in London organised by London Champion Miles Maier. Unfortunately I couldn't stay for the whole session, but from the interesting stories of what life is like on the front line I got confirmation that there is a big stretch between the visions emerging from Web 2.0 social innovators, and groups still struggling to network their office computers. Are they left to struggle on their own as funding for technical support from Circuit Riders becomes more problematic - as seems likely? Should they just budget tech costs in with phones, print, rent and other overheads - and concentrate on convincing funders of the need for this in core costs? Should Circuit Riders pitch some innovative ideas to social innovation camp? Maybe time for a Newman Arms session.

Dan McQuillan, who has an impressive track-record of online innovation with Amnesty and other nonprofits, is now saying openly what others are muttering: the charity model is broken for many cause-related purposes.
He said this briefly at a recent get-together for a possible UK version of Netsquared, aimed at promoting web-enabled social innovation.
He has now filled out his thinking in a blog post advocating seedcamps for social innovation. These are competitive-collaborative events where entrepreneurs meet investors and mentors.

Dan writes:

I've heard quite a bit about seedcamp and it's high octane approach to incubating web innovation. I wonder if the same model could be applied to social innovation? For sure, we need some new methodologies, because it looks like the old way of organising into charities and NGOs is broken.

UNDERMINING INNOVATIONAt first sight, seedcamp is a purely business proposition, mentoring startups on competitiveness and providing injections of venture capital. What's that got to do with alleviating social problems? But compare and contrast with the characteristics of many charities. In my experience, the amount of innovation that makes it out of the door of an NGO is a tenth of what it could be. And the limiting factor isn't rigerous testing of ideas against reality, but institutional conservatism. Anyone who's worked in the sector knows the score; anxiety-based leadership, a focus on internal politics, inter-departmental struggle and an unquestioning conflation of the issue and the organisation.

CATCH UP OR CATCH 22But charities don't own social issues. And it's lazy behaviour for the rest of society to assume that bunging charities a regular donation is actually good value. We'll see what happens as more sousveillance and web-enabled transparency is applied to the third sector. The web-savvy minority in nonprofits know that it's urgent for their organisations to catch up with the digital age. "If only the CEO would blog more, if only our campaigners understood facebook..." But are these the core issues? Or is the starker question that the inherent nature of charities as institutions makes them anithetical to the participative and post-deferential nature of the social web?

ROUTING AROUND BLOCKAGESPersonally, I'm more excited about the new modes of collaborative innovation opened up by the web, and how these can be powerfully applied to solving social issues . I don't just mean web tools themselves, but the wider social modes and processes opened up, from the virtual organisation to crowdsourcing, and from open IP to self-organising networks. There are already examples of NGO startups; GetUp systematically applied the accidentally viral success of MoveOn to the Australian third sector, and in six months had more members than Amnesty Australia. So if we want to encourage social innovation that leverages these possibilities we need ways to incubate it that are native to this space rather than native to the nineteenth century. Roll on, social innovation seedcamp.

I think Dan is right in doubting whether adding new social media to old models will work, as I wrote here when the Government announced plans for a Third Sector innovation exchange. We need a different approach - and Simon Berry, I and others, tried promoting that through an Open Innovation bid for the innovation exchange. We didn't win, but the process give us some insights into what a different way of doing things might be like. More here about the "official" innovation exchange that's now up and running.
I'm fascinated by the idea of an innovation development process that would mix seedcamp events, online exchanges and many other elements to really put some buzz behind different ways of promoting and supporting social action. I think it's what Matthew Taylor has in mind for the RSA, as I've covered in posts here (scroll down to start at the beginning). But can you innovate successfully from within such a venerable structure, or does the internal change process sap so much of your energy there's too little left for the real work outside? Dan has been brave enough to pose the question. More ideas please.

Whitehall Webby Jeremy Gould, whose day job is web manager at the Ministry of Justice, is making a very direct contribution to the promised new politics of Government-citizen collaboration: he's inviting us to help transform government by sharing expertise in the use of social media tools.
Jeremy's Ministry is responsible for the Governance of Britain initiative, which underpins Gordon Brown's enthusiasms for promoting engagement, as I outlined here.
Jeremy has just announced a get-together in January for anyone interested in innovation online as applied to government. Although it is billed as UKGovweb barcamp, and mainly aimed at people in or near to government, the wiki page offers a pretty open invite to enthusiasts:

This event should be of interest to all who work in the UK government digital media community: permanent civil servants, contractors, consultants, agencies, advisers, supporters, observers, and critics.

Those of you who read this blog regularly, or get cornered by me in the real world, will know there are two things in particular that I am particularly passionate about

* clarity around government online strategy, and
* how to innovate online, especially piloting the use of social media tools

I think these are important issues for government webbies (and by government, I don’t just mean Whitehall but right across the public sector). Talking to colleagues I know that these issues important to them too.

I’ve been talking for a while with colleagues in the transformational government team (they who are driving the website rationalisation / convergence, and other related, initiatives) about how we can harness the collective knowledge and intelligence of all those with an interest in improving how government does all this web stuff. Its becoming more important as we start to explore the possibilities and opportunities of government online beyond our corporate websites and intranets.

My proposal was to run a barcamp event, where those who want to participate in developing ideas, sharing their expertise and swapping tips can come together as a community. For those not familiar with the barcamp concept, check out the wikipedia page. The key point is that you come if you have something to offer and you participate, rather than simply observe.

I’m delighted to report that they agree, so I’m pleased to seed the message here that we aim to have the event run across the last week of January 2008 (Saturday 26th/ Sunday 27th). I say ‘aim to have the event run’ because it will only work with the input, energy and enthusiasm of the participants. We have suggested a proposition and date, we’re hoping that enough people will want to be part of this to come along and also to help organise the event.

If you know others who might be interested, let them know about it. In particular, if you blog then please point your readers to the page on the barcamp website.

I really do hope that together we can work together to get a common sense of purpose, and share some innovative ideas about government’s approach to all things online.

Maybe I'm wrong to make a direct link to the Governance of Britain/new politics initiative - and the barcamp is strictly apolitical - but I find it incredibly heartening when a civil servant goes that bit further to practice emerging policy, and notions of openness. At a weekend too.
Disclosure: I have done some consulting for MoJ, helping civil servants use this engagement design game. Maybe barcampers would like to play too.

A couple of workshops I ran recently reminded me that amidst enthusiasm for the opportunities for engagement and collaboration that social media can bring, organisational culture and systems are likely to be a strong inhibitors. The first hurdle may be language.
In both workshops I was working with groups to play through different versions of the social media games I have developed with Drew Mackie. In each case we started by inventing some possible situations - scenarios - where social media could be used for engagement or collaboration, and then went on to use packs of cards to choose a mix of tech and non-tech methods.
Members of one workshop were marketing and communications specialists working in the education field, and they wanted to think through (among other things) how "chip shop mums" could be persuaded to offer their children better diets; how people could be encouraged to challenge yob/hoodie culture (is there a better word?); how children being taught at school might enter the state system.
In each instance - as far as I could see - action would depend upon parents and citizens deciding to do things differently. They would probably be more persuaded by people they knew than by official exhortation. Not only would they need to engage with the issues, they would need to collaborate.
However, the seminar framework within which the workshop discussion was taking place was "identify your audiences, clarify your messages, choose your channels, set your targets, develop a plan".
The groups were choosing social media tools like MySpace, blogs, video, identifying possible champions to use them, but perhaps not realising at first that once you go down that path you can't control what happens. You have moved from the world of media megaphones to one where "The Audiences" are no longer the receivers of content; they are the producers.
Of course, that's always been the case in situations where people can chat to each other ... whether at the school gate or in the chip shop queue. Social media increases the reach, amplifies the organisation-instruction/personal-conversation gulf.
We talked a bit about that at the wrap-up of the session, and there were lots of nodding heads, so I'm sure, as they say, it will be taken on board. I must check in and see what future social media communication plans look like.
The other workshop was with tenants and leaseholders of a large housing organisation, where the community development staff were keen to explore how social media could help people not only get better services, but also participate in forums and other activities even if they were spread across south-east England.
We had great fun a their conference this weekend inventing situations that ranged from flooding putting out all centralised systems, to online advice systems and organising childcare. Groups then had no difficulty working out what might be done - because those in a group that weren't too sure what a blog or wiki was, got help from the others.
The director of IT joined in and added some bright ideas ... but over lunch was rather more circumspect. The problem was, he said, we would need to work out how to support and manage these new systems. There would need to be some control.
Of course, that was clearly the case when the new services had to be integrated with those already provided by the organisation. But these days there's nothing to stop a group of residents setting up their own communication systems using free or low-cost web services ... and I sensed that this might initially bring furrows to some brows.
The discussions that would then be necessary within the organisation - perhaps between community development staff and service providers - would probably be a replay of others over the years about how far people should be consulted, engaged, trusted.
Again, I think things will work out. As I was leaving, and chatting to staff organising the event, I raised this possible tension. "Oh don't worry about that", they said. "We don't hang about. We just set up our own wikis for collaboration, and get on with it".
While the two workshops reminded me of the control and culture issues raised by social media, they also confirmed that a good way to start dealing with them is to get together in groups and talk about it. Nice to have clients who recognise that ... which reminds me of another point.
In an exchange of emails after the first event my client contact said she thought that the game had been really useful, and she would be using it to help plan a communications network for a group of education institutions that really needed to collaborate more effectively. My first thought was, hey, how about involving me. But then I reminded myself that I had said the games were Creative Commons licensed and could be used and remixed if then put back into the public domain. That's the thing about social media stuff, once it's out there, you can't control it.
Report of an earlier workshop on using social media for engagement, and one on social media in housing.
If you are interested in an insider view of how the UK government is grappling with social media, you can do no better than read Whitehall Webby Jeremy Gould. He reports on how the Foreign Office is embracing Web 2.0 under Ministerial blogger David Miliband. That's the other lesson, of course. A bit of old-style leader is needed if you want to cut through the barriers ... and good to see that it will be more than him with the blog in future. You can find FCO blogs here..

Click To PlayLast week I was at an excellent knowledge cafe about video run by David Gurteen, where Brad Meyer, of I-T-L, was telling us about his work. He had used video to bring together two groups of people who otherwise had difficulty communicating.
I was fortunate enough to be sitting at the table with Brad, and since I had my camera with me, I wanted to capture something from him directly. But the session was about how the introduction of video cameras to a situation made a difference to the dynamics of communication. So why just talk about it ... why not do it?
I handed the camera to Jason Bates, of Beaufortes, who was sitting with us. I didn't give Jason any warning, but I think we ended up with a better interview than I could have done - plus some observations on how the experiment had changed the nature of the conversation. At Brad's suggestion, I also used a very simple technique to get Jason's persmission to use the clip. Watch the end and you'll see.

As I wrote earlier, there's a lot of buzz around social media in the UK nonprofit world, but not yet much joining up. These days that needn't mean formal coalitions - just a preparedness to share knowledge and help those new to the field. How might we do that? Perhaps through an innovation exchange for the use of new media among nonprofits. I've just posted this over at the Open Innovation Exchange.

I've been looking through the nominations for the New Statesman New Media Awards**, and I'm blown away by the range of interesting online initiatives there, ranging from the governmental to the small group and individual.
The Open Innovation Exchange has been nominated, and of course we are all hopeful that we'll get recognition for the open process we used to bid for the Cabinet Office contract, even though we failed. (No official news of the winner, though I did hear unconfirmed rumblings that the lead within the third sector may be ACEVO rather than NCVO).
The aim of the awards is to "celebrate UK new media projects that benefit society, government or democracy," and this year the categories are Contribution to civic society; Modernising government; Elected representative; Education Information and openness; Advocacy; Young Innovator. You can see last year's winners here.
I know some of those nominated - but not about many others, even though I try and scan the field and write about it here. It strikes me that awards are great for flushing out interesting initiatives, and rewarding them after they have achieved something. However, awards aren't generally designed to encourage start-ups, or help them learn from more experienced initiatives. To do that we would need .... ummm ... an innovation exchange!
The main Third Sector Innovation Exchange, once established, will no doubt provide an excellent service across the major activities of nonprofits in the UK. However, I believe that the sector could do with a special boost in it's use of new media, where in my experience there is a big gap between the type of innovations featured in the New Statesman Awards and many of the rest. Maybe a New Media Innovation Exchange could help make some links between the various European and UK initiatives now emerging, and open up learning to a wider audience.
How would we get that going? Why, run an open process of invention, of course. Anyone interested, please drop a comment below.
** I'm on the awards judging panel, but not for the Modernising government section where the Open Innovation Exchange has been nominated.

Apologies if this appears to be shameless lobbying for the role of open innovation. I know my fellow judges will be totally dispassionate, rightly suspecting we may well do it whether or not we get an award.

In Another shout for a Netsquared Europe Steve Bridger offers a round-up of initiatives to promote and support the innovative use of social media for social change. Nonprofits in the US are better organised, particularly through Netsquared, which runs events, awards, aggregates blogs, and develops its community in many other ways too. Steve writes:

Amnesty's Dan McQuillan has made a rallying call for a Netsquared this side of the pond - which could be an "incubator for web-enabled social change in the UK & Europe"
Dan identifies some possible goals:
* To stimulate web-enabled social innovation
* To create a an online-offline community for learning skills, sharing experiences and developing expertise
* To sustain socially progressive activity through alternative business & organisational models
I like the emphasis Dan gives to "activism", and "the organisational question" in particular ...
"Perhaps, like the second Netsquared conference, it could aim to incubate a new generation of web-enabled non-profits that use new forms of organising to deliver more directly on their missions."
There is a very real tension between where social media is taking us and how charities are responding (although there needn't be). Web 2.0 requires Leadership 2.0. Surely two sides of the same coin.
All this may well dovetail with the initiative soon to be unveiled by Bertie Bosrédon, the Head of New Media at Breast Cancer Care. Bertie gave me an update earlier this week.
Yesterday, I happened to get a call from Richard Saunders, who is head of website development at NCH, the children's charity. He also hinted he would welcome a forum along these lines. And Rob Bowker at the BTCV has flagged his interest to me via this blog.
I also know from many of the conversations I had in Brussels last week that there would be an appetite for this elsewhere in Europe, too. Paolo Ferrara left a comment on my recent Buzz Director post to let me know that they are starting to unpick this concept in their own Italian context.